CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 1

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
March 28, 2019 People vs Arguta

There are 2 criminal informations filed against Calipe and

Saldariega vs Panganiban Arguta, charging Calipe two counts of rape, and Arguta with
one. There was the first information where both of them were
We have this accused, si Saldariega, who was charged for charged with rape, and the second which is only Calipe. Later,
violation of several provisions of RA 9165 (Comprehensive the court found both of them guilty in the first information for
Dangerous Drugs Act). The ordered hearing was set for that the crime of simple rape. The second rape case was dismissed
day but the witnesses for the prosecution were not able to be kay wala na prove ang guilt.
present. So, walay evidence during that hearing. Therefore,
the judge issued an order provisionally dismissing the cases. So They challenged the decision of the appellate court. Why was
nay provisional dismissal with the expressed consent of the it changed from simple rape to qualified rape? As we already
accused, Saldariega. Later on, the state filed a motion to know, an appeal goes into the open, the entire case is for
reopen the cases because two witnesses were ready to testify, review, and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors though
and the motion to reopen this provisionally dismissed cases unassigned in the appeal judgment, or even reverse the trial
was granted. court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the
parties raised as errors.
Now, the accused here argues the case has already been
dismissed: the reopening of cases will be tantamount to The appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction
violation of his right against double jeopardy. Is he correct? Of over the case and renders that court competent to examine
course not. The provisional dismissal of the case does not records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
operate as an acquittal because the dismissal was made with penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
the expressed consent of the accused. Kanang magpa-
provisional dismissal, the accused consents to it. It’s not also Here, they cannot complain. In fact, the Court affirmed the
an acquittal because it’s not going on the merits. It’s a dismissal conviction of the accused for qualified rape instead of simple
of the case with the consent of the accused. So, walay valid rape because they appealed it to the appellate court. When
termination on the first jeopardy. the appellate court found that the ruling was erroneous, it
increased the charge. So, that is the risk. You are penalized by
The proscription against DJ presupposes the accused has been the trial court and you want it reversed, there is also the risk
previously charged, the case against him is terminated by 1.) that your penalty is increased because you throw your case
acquittal; 2.) conviction; or 3.) dismissal without his consent. into the open when you appeal.
None of those instances nga na terminate ang double jeopardy
is present here. As we also learned, when you appeal, you waive your right
against double jeopardy because you subject yourself again to
There are instances, however, where a dismissal of the case, the jurisdiction of the appellate court. You are the one who
even with the consent of the accused, bars a subsequent prayed to change the decision. You cannot claim that there is
prosecution because DJ already attaches. What are those double jeopardy if the decision is unfavorable to you.
limited instances where dismissal is already equivalent to
acquittal?
1.) It is a dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence even Assistio vs People
if the accused moves for it, therefore he consents to it, it
is a trial on the merits and when it is granted, it amounts Facts: The accused, Assistio, was charged in violation of the
to acquittal; Cooperative Code of the Philippines. After the presentation of
2.) If it is dismissed by way of motion of the accused nga the evidence of the prosecution, what is the usual thing done
na violate iyang right to speedy trial or speedy disposition. by the accused? He’ll file for a motion to a demurrer to the
evidence. That’s what was done here.
Here, none of those exceptions are present. First, naa bay
demurrer? Wala man. Second, was there inordinate delay that What was the ground for demurrer? She did not state that
warranted the dismissal? No! The court said here that the there was no evidence, etc. but rather, that the trial court did
delay, if any in this case, was reasonable and not inordinate. not have jurisdiction over the case. Because of this, when the
So, walay termination of the first jeopardy, and therefore the RTC read the demurrer, it agreed with the accused and it
continuation of the cases that were provisionally dismissed dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and not for failing to prove
would not violate the right against DJ. his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The People of the Philippines appealed the order of dismissal

of the case in the CA. So, the grant of the demurrer to evidence
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 2

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
was appealed. The accused contended that the grant of
demurrer to evidence is already an acquittal; therefore, Considering that the dismissal here was not based on the
subjecting her to this appeal is already violative of her right merits, there is no acquittal, no double jeopardy. Moreover,
against double jeopardy. the dismissal of the case here was done with the consent of
the accused. But we learned before that even if you file for a
The CA rendered a decision, reversing and setting aside the demurrer, even if you consented to it, because you’re the one
RTC’s orders and held to continue the trial. So, she, aggrieved, filing for it and it was granted, that is an exception to the
went to the SC, challenging this violates her right against dismissal without the consent. It amounts to an acquittal.
double jeopardy. The right to demurrer to evidence was
already granted. Here, it is not equivalent to acquittal because the demurrer
was not decided based on the merits but rather, on the court’s
Issue: Was there was a violation to her right against double lack of jurisdiction. So, no double jeopardy.
jeopardy?

Held: No because this is a demurrer. People vs. Chi Chan Liu

A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties Facts: The police officers went to the place occupied by
in an action to the effect that the evidence which the adverse Chinese personnel, and when they searched the boat, they
party – the State, produced, during the time it was filed, is were able to find shabu. This prompted the police officers to
insufficient evidence to make a case or sustain an issue. apprehend them and after they were detained, two cases were
filed against them for violation of Section 14 of RA 7659
General rule: When a demurrer to evidence is granted, it is (importation of prohibited drugs).
equivalent to an acquittal. It is, thus, final and unappealable.
Otherwise, it would be violative of the right against double The trial court found them guilty for importation of drugs. So
jeopardy. they appealed this case. The CA affirmed RTC ruling.
SC reversed the ruling and found that they were only liable for
Exception: A dismissal of the case, even by way of a demurrer, possession.
does not always amount to an acquittal.
Remember that their charge is importation but the decision
In this case, the dismissal was not an acquittal even if it was was modified into mere possession. In discussing the case, the
done by way of a demurrer to evidence. It was granted because Court had to cite an old case, where it was held by the Supreme
the decision dismissing the case was not based on merits. The Court that importation necessarily includes possession.
court did not look into the whether or not there was evidence
but rather if it had jurisdiction. That’s the basis of the trial How can you import if you do not possess? So if you cannot be
court. It granted the demurrer and dismissed the case, not for guilty of importation, there is a possibility that you can be held
insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction. guilty for possession of illegal drugs. That case is in People vs
Elcanish, where two informations: possession and
So, if the demurrer is not based on the merits and it is importation, where the court said that the accused cannot be
nevertheless granted, it is not equivalent to an acquittal prosecuted of this other charge because this possession is
because the court did not examine the case based on its included in the importation. So the Court said that there is
merits; therefore, the order dismissing this case by way of double jeopardy actually if you prosecute them for these two
demurrer did not operate as acquittal and therefore that charges because possession is included in importation. Citing
dismissal can be validly appealed by the state without violating that case the court justified the ruling that even if they are not
the right of the accused against double jeopardy. liable for importation, they may be held liable for possession.

Acquittal distinguished from dismissal

Arroyo vs People
The Court distinguished here again, dismissal from acquittal.
An acquittal is always based on the merits. The defendant is Facts: Arroyo was charged with plunder before the
acquitted because the evidence does not show that his guilt Sandiganbayan and so after prosecution presented the
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. evidence, Arroyo (accused) filed a demurrer to evidence. The
Sandiganbayan, however, did not grant the demurer.
On the other hand, a dismissal is not decided based on the
merits of the case. It is decided or granted because the court Arroyo went to the Supreme Court to challenged the denial of
does not have competent jurisdiction or it was a wrong the petition for the demurer of evidence which is an
venue, etc. i.e. based on the technicality. interlocutory order. And then Supreme Court granted petition
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 3

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
and she was acquitted. Granting, the Court said that the The accused manifested to the open court that he would no
Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in longer present an evidence for the defense and submitted the
denying her demurrer to evidence. case for decision. He did not even defend himself.

The Supreme Court granted the demurrer to evidence which The RTC acquitted the accused on July 26, 2011. But RTC
amounts to an acquittal. The Office of the Ombudsman moved recalled the decision in the same day. Why? There was
for the reconsideration for the decision of the SC. And for that acquittal but discovering that there is something wrong, the
MR GMA alleged the decision has effectively barred the RTC reversed the order of dismissal.
consideration because doing so would amount to re-
prosecution or revival to a charge against her despite the Why? What was the cause? Because RTC noted that AAA
acquittal. testified in court, but in truth and in fact AAA testified and the
order containing the statement of AAA was mistakenly
The grant of the demurer by the SC itself is already an acquittal; captioned and attached on another criminal case where
therefore, an acquittal is already final and executory. Now that Alejandro was also the accused and as a result of that mistake
the state moves for reconsideration of that acquittal, that Alejandro was acquitted.
would subject them again to double jeopardy.
He was acquitted because of the faulty records. Upon typing
Issue: Is there a double jeopardy in this case? Why? the order of the court, a wrong case number was typed.
Yes. The Acquittal was effected through demurer of evidence. Apparently, this rapist also had several cases in the other
The court quoted here the case of People vs Sandiganbayan – courts. The caption of rape case number was erroneously
which states that the dismissal of the case on the merits is typed, so the record that the minor victim testified was placed
tantamount to the acquittal of the accused. Such dismissal of in another case.
the criminal case by the grant demurer to evidence may not be
appealed, for to do so would place the accused in double As the court checked, it discovered that the minor testified.
jeopardy. Because of the inadvertence, it reversed the acquittal and
proceeded with the trial. It said that if that piece of evidence is
But take note that it is a requisite in Rule 65 petition before the considered which was inadvertedly went to another case, it
SC that you should have exhausted all the remedies, which would have been resulted in the conviction of the accused.
includes the filing of an MR. For instance, if you are already
acquitted, the State before it can go to Rule 65 has to prove What did the court do to the accused after it reversed the
that it has availed of a motion for reconsideration. But here, acquittal? The accused was convicted. Take note that this case,
the court said that you cannot move for reconsideration the reason why the judge reversed the acquittal was because
because he is already acquitted. the prosecution manifested that based on their records, there
is inadvertence: the evidence is just mislocated. It should have
Why is it that even in MR, you cannot file an MR of an been part of the records. So, by their manifestation, the court
acquittal? was informed of that misact. And using that piece of evidence,
the accused was convicted.
What happens when you are acquitted? As such, every
acquittal becomes final and immediately upon promulgation The accused then appealed to the CA challenging the
and cannot be recalled for correction or ammendment. The conviction. The accused herein alleged that he was already
acquittal is already final and executory. To subject that to acquitted and such conviction is tantamount to double
review would violate the person’s rights against double jeopardy.
jeopardy.
What happens when there is already an acquittal? Final and
So that was what happened to that case. GMA was acquitted executory.
for some magical reason and the MR sustained because it is in
due course that the State should do. The Court stopped Issue: Was there double jeopardy in this case?
Ombudsman, you can no longer file for an MR because it is
already violative of the right against double jeopardy. Held: Yes. The elements of double jeopardy are present in this
case.1.) Valid information; 2.) Court of competent jurisdiction
and the accused was arraigned; and 3.) First jeopardy was
People vs Alejandro acquitted by way of acquittal, which is final and executory.

Facts: The accused appellant was charged with two counts of Is it not that the judgment of acquittal here is rendered based
rape. He raped a 12-year old minor, twice. And so the in a mistaken notion? Is it not a ground to reverse that
prosecution presented the evidence and the minor testified. acquittal? The mistake did not change the fact that there is
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 4

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
already a judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal is final 3. When the restraints are voluntary and unnecessary;
and unappealable. 4. Where deprivation of freedom which is originally valid
becomes, later on, invalid or arbitrary until if there is
The Court said that it is clear in this case that the accused has a favorable evidence against a convicted felon or
already been acquitted. And there are only two grounds to convict.
reverse an acquittal:
Under the provision, the privilege can only be suspended only
1. There is deprivation of due process, or mistrial; and if there is rebellion or invasion and the public safety requires
2. There has been grave abuse of discretion under it.
exceptional circumstances.
Effect of the writ of habeas corpus to bail:
In this case, the mistake which resulted to the acquittal of the
accused was only by way of manifestation by the prosecutor. As a rule, the right to bail is not suspended even if the privilege
You cannot do that. There must be a proper filing of the of the writ is suspended. You can still file for bail.
petition alleging or proving the two exceptional grounds. The
prosecution should have filed a petition for certiorari under When can you avail of the Writ?
Rule 65. Furthermore, there was no allegation of the two
abovementioned grounds in the manifestation. The two 1. So you can avail of the writ of habeas corpus when
grounds were not proved. you are detained without a charge. As we said earlier,
which happens when you are detained for a
Therefore, the acquittal was proper and the state cannot commission of a crime and you are not charged within
anymore question that, otherwise it will violate the right a prescribed period.
against double jeopardy.
2. The detention becomes illegal after that number of
hours if you are still not charged before the courts.
So after that, you may already file for petition of writ
of habeas corpus.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
3. When sentence has been served.
Article III, Section 15:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be 4. When you are detained and you are enslaved for
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the payment of debt. Because as we already know, no
public safety requires it. one can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. So if
your are imprisoned by your creditor, your family can
Writ of Habeas Corpus, defined: file a petition to free you.

It is an order issued by a court, directed to a person detaining What happens if the court issuing the writ directs that person
another, commanding it to produce the body of this prisoner to produce you before the court and explain why you
at a designated time and place, and to explain the cause of detained such person.
detention.
What if the person directed by the writ does not obey the
There are 4 cases under the rule that you can file a petition directive of the court? He will just say “ I don’t care”
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus:
The non-production of the person is sufficient ground to make
1. If you are detained without charges; offenders liable in contempt of court. So you may be charged
2. When the prisoner has served sentence but is not for contempt of court.
released;
3. In custody of children; or Instances where you cannot be allowed or discharged
4. When a patient is detained in the hospital for the through a writ of habeas corpus:
failure to pay the bill.
1. If the person is in custody of an officer and is under a
There are also other instances where it can be applied for: process by a court or judge;
In other words, his custody is not illegal. You are
1. When a person is unlawfully denied constitutional detained because your case went through a trial, and
freedom; you are convicted. Therefore you are supposed to be
2. When a person is denied of due process; incarcerated.
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 5

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
No. There is no law that allows them to do the deportation.
2. Or you have a case pending before the court and How can you therefore deport? What should be the basis? It
unable to file bail. In other words, the detention is should be based on a law or a lawful order.
legal so you cannot ask for the writ of habeas corpus
for your release. When the person is charged with or Here, the Court said that there is no law empowering the
convicted of a crime. If he is imprisoned under lawful Mayor or the Chief of Police to deport prostitutes. In fact it is
judgment. violative of the Revised Penal Code for any public officer not
authorized by law to deport these individuals. Even for lepers,
The Writ of Habeas Corpus as compared to the Writ of a law is necessary with more reason to prostitutes. Even if they
Amparo: are considered lepers according to the Supreme Court.

1. As to scope of remedy: Writ of Amparo is writ of Anyways, the proper remedy here is the writ of habeas corpus.
protection. It is wider in scope because it is a remedy It is the speedy and immediate remedy to relieve persons form
against life, liberty, and security. On the other hand, writ unlawful restraints and as best and only sufficient defense of
of habeas corpus is only limited to liberty. personal freedom.

2. As to applicability: In writ of Amparo, it applies not only 1st Issue: Did the petitioners (relatives of the deported) have
to actual violation of such rights but also to threatened standing in Court?
violations. On the other hand, a writ of habeas corpus will
only be issued if there is proof of actual deprivation of Held: Yes. They have standing in Court because it is impossible
liberty. for the deported women who are already in Mindanao to file
the petition themselves. Therefore, the petition may properly
3. As to whom it may be instituted against :A writ of amparo be submitted by these relatives in behalf of the deported
may be instituted against a public official or employee or women.
a private individual or entity while the latter as a rule may
only be invoked against the State. 2nd Issue: WON there was detention because according to the
State, they were not under restraint: being able to freely look
Note however that the Writ of Amparo is applicable only to around in any part of Mindanao.
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
Held:
The landmark case for the Writ of Amparo is the case of
What does the Writ of Habeas Corpus protect or relieve you
Villavicencio vs Lucban from? It is indispensable that there must be a restraint of
liberty. Your liberty must be restraint or restricted because the
Facts: There were prostitutes in Manila and rounded up. They essential object or purpose of the writ is to inquire with all
were all contained in vessel. They did not know where they manner involuntary restraint.
were going. They were deported to the island of Mindanao.
Here, they were involuntarily restraint. The forcible taking of
When they were released, their concerned relatives went to these women from Manila by officials of the city, who handed
the Supreme Court. By way of a petition for habeas corpus, them to other parties, deposited them in a distant region,
they wanted these people to go back to Manila deprived them of movement or motion, just as effectively as
. they have been in prison. They are prevented from exercising
There were several argument against this petition and among the liberty of going when and where they please, because they
others: They were not the proper parties because those who are stuck in Mindanao.
were affected should be the ones to file the case; They were
not in actual custody because the women here were free to Even they were not imprisoned but this circumstance deprived
roam around Mindanao. effectively of your locomotion.

So there is no legal custody or any detention to speak of In Re: Gonzales

warranting the granting of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. Facts: We have mutineers here from Oakwood Mutiny. They
were charged with coup de etat before the court and they
So let’s go first to the authority of the Mayor and the Chief of posted for bail. That application of bail was granted before the
Police. court. The court ordered the person detaining them to release
them but they were not released. The State contested that
Did they have any basis to effect that deportation? grant of bail by the court. It went to the CA.
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 6

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
place. If it is shown that there is restraint of liberty,
On the other hand, the accused were still not released. They we now go to the 2nd inquiry;
filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA. The State
sought the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus because 2.) The cause of the detention – if the cause is illegal, the
nag doble na ilang kaso. There is already a pending application writ will be granted. If the cause is not illegal, it is
for the grant of bail, on the one hand. And this petition for the found to be not unlawful, then the writ will not be
writ of habeas corpus, seeking the release, which basically has granted. That is, again, based on the discretion of the
the same effect. court.

The court said that this petition for habeas corpus cannot be Here, as the person praying for the release of this person, he
granted because the mutineers here committed forum has the burden of evidence to prove that: First, the restraint
shopping. In any case, the reliefs they are asking in their by the adoptive children of Eufemia is illegal; and second is that
petition for habeas corpus is similar to the effect sa katong Veluz was the one who has the proper legal custody. If it is
pending case for the grant of bail. Therefore, they should not proved that there is restraint, the restraint must be illegal,
have filed the petition for habeas corpus because the relief which the Veluz did not do.
they are seeking is the same relief they are asking for in the
certiorari case involving their bail.
Fletcher vs Director of Bureau
Moreover, the main issue in both cases boils down to whether
the accused should be released on bail. Facts: This person was convicted for an offense and he was
serving his sentence. He was convicted with prison sentence
Veluz vs Villanueva for 12 to 17 years. But, he claimed that his penalty was
commuted to 9 years to 12 years. Since he was serving his
Facts: Eufemia, a 94-year old widow, was living with her sentence for 14 years, he filed a petition for writ of habeas
nephew Veluz. Later on, Luisa and Teresita took this old corpus.
woman from the custody of Veluz. Because of this, Veluz went
to court and challenged the purported detention of Eufemia by His petition was opposed by the SolGen on the ground that the
way of petition for writ of habeas corpus before the CA. petition filed by this person was not signed nor verified by it or
a person on his behalf or his purported counsel. There is a
The CA denied the petition because they failed to prove any formal defect in the petition. It is the verification of this
unlawful restraint committed by those people who to Eufemia. person.
Who were those people, anyway? They were the legally
adopted children of Eufemia. They have established that they The court said that in petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, the
have the legal custody of this person, therefore, the writ shall rules shall be liberally constructed. The technicality of
not be granted. procedural infirmities may be set aside so that there will be
proper disposition of the case without really dwelling with the
It went to the SC to challenge the decision of the CA. What technicalities.
does Writ of Habeas Corpus cover?
The petition for writ is required to be verified but the defect is
Two instances contemplated by the Writ of Habeas Corpus: in form and it is not fatal. Therefore, it will not unduly confine
the writ of habeas corpus in the prison walls of technicality.
1. Deprivation over such liberty through illegal
confinement or detention; or Nevertheless, the court said that he was not entitled to the
2. Withholding of the custody of a person entitled to writ because he was legally confined. He was also confined
that custody. because he had another case pending. The writ cannot be
issued when the custody over the person is by virtue of judicial
Apparently, you can use this Writ of Habeas Corpus to regain process or valid judgment. In the first place, he was convicted.
custody over someone. The commutation of his sentence was not proved. In any case,
if it was commuted, he can ask for his release by way of an
The restraint must be proved to be illegal and involuntary. But, application for parole. But he had a pending case and that is a
if you file a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to the ground for denial. In any angle you see, he cannot be released.
person claiming that you should be the one having custody or
that the detention is illegal, you have to prove the following:
Ampatuan vs Macaraig
1.) The court will inquire – you will have to prove that this
person is being restrained of his liberty in the first
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 7

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
There is this policeman who was apprehended because he was
involved in the killing of COMELEC officials. So he was detained
and subjected to inquest. Later on, he was subjected to
another investigation by the Police Director General and he
was given to the regional director to be under restrictive
custody.

The wife of this person went to court and filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus because they claimed that there is an
unlawful withholding or restraint of liberty of her husband.

The court said that there was no illegal restraint here because
he was validly under restrictive custody. Take note of the
reckoning point of the legality of one’s detention. The court
will determine the period on when the detention should be
reckoned: whether such detention is illegal or not – is at the
time of the filing of the application for the writ. Because it
would be possible that the restraint of liberty, initially not
valid, is valid upon filing. The validity of the restriction should
be determined at the date of the filing.

So, the writ will not be issued if the custody of the person is by
virtue of judicial process or valid judgment, or if it is not illegal.

In this case, the legal custody was effected by way of an order

of this Police Director General. He was placed under this
protected custody which he is able to do so under RA 6975,
and that constitutes a valid argument for his continued
detention. Therefore, that restraint is not a form of illegal
detention or restraint of liberty. He was validly under
restrictive custody – a nominal restraint beyond the ambit of
habeas corpus petition.

Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot